Re: [dispatch] Proposed/draft charter for "mediaman"

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:31 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If the community comes to an understanding that the barriers to
> registration are appropriate, the current procedures are likely adequate
> (although it'd be good to get feedback from other standards bodies).
> However, if they're to be changed, the registration procedure would need
> consideration too.
>
> With that in mind, I suggest replacing the bullet about GitHub with:
>
> * Evaluate the registry policies and procedures in the context of how
> media types are currently used, and modify them if necessary.
>

I've folded this suggestion and John's into the draft charter, which I've
now added to the datatracker so that people can see changes over time as we
iterate:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mediaman/

Please have a look and let me know if this is good enough to proceed to the
formal part of chartering.  Note that the process still requires two review
passes through the IESG and one formal round of public commentary, so I'm
wondering if people feel like it might be close enough to start those
processes, or if we should iterate here again first.

I've also, per John's suggestion, inquired about whether ISO generally, or
a TC specific to haptics, is already listed as an approved SDO for media
type registrations.   Even if they are, though, BCP 13 still requires a
standards track RFC for a top-level registration, though the path he
proposes would be fine for all the sub-registrations they might want to
make.

-MSK